Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Baby J'ai


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sweet Baby J'ai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability, not enough sources for an article of substance. I used what I could find but too much of the article remains unsourced. Since 2008. Probably more of a blues or R&B singer than a jazz singer. Vmavanti (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The sources brought by Atlantic306 require discussion.
 * Keep as does have at least two reliable sources in the article, the unreferenced material can be removed pending sourcing and the article stubbed, there is nothing wrong with a properly referenced stub imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC) There's also this LA Times piece here, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "nothing wrong with a properly referenced stub imv"—Except it isn't properly referenced. That's why there's a maintenance template at the top requiring additional references.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * You didn't help matters by removing the LA Times article before the AFD, it has three reliable sources, enough for a stub Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What article did I remove? Did you notice that I ADDED sourced material? Vmavanti (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please use colons, not asterisks, on Talk page discussions. Thanks.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spout _ 01:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Making massive edits to a page including removing references and then nominating for AfD puts a bad taste in my mouth. Scrap the AfD and resubmit later once the page has recovered from the recent edits. PhobosIkaros   ✉  22:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about your objections? Please use colons, not asterisks, on Talk pages. Thanks. Atlantic306 appears to be using the word "sources" wrong. The Los Angeles Times is one source, not three. He provided a link to one article. I've noticed no one has gone into detail about that subject, but two people object to material being deleted without mentioning that material was also added. What exactly are the objections to deletion other than "I don't like deletion", which isn't an argument.

Vmavanti (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood my comments, the three sources are the Allmusic bio and The Mercury News already in the article and The LA Times which you removed. I don't see that you added any new sources.The objections to deletion are that with three reliable sources the article passes WP:GNG and can be stubbed to remove unreferenced content and there is no valid reason for deletion at all. Also asteriks aid accessability more than invisible colons, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone else on the site uses colons for Talk Page indents. I assumed that was standard procedure and I've found no reason to deviate from it.
 * Where are you getting the magic number three? And why are you using the General Notability guidelines rather than Notability (music)?
 * If you go back to a version before I started editing, you will see the condition the article was in. I count seven "citation needed" templates, and that's with the Mercury article, AllMusic, and the LA Times article by Don Heckamen here. That means there was a lot of information those sources didn't cover and therefore there was a need for many more sources. I don't remember why I removed it, but I suspect it had something to do with the fact that the LA Times article added nothing beyond the Mercury and AllMusic sources. If it's this hard to find sources, the subject isn't notable. Counting sources isn't how it's done. One, two, three—you shouldn't have to split hairs. It's either notable or it isn't. Let's not pretend this is science. Let's not pretend it's a close call. There simply are not that many sources. One more thin article from the LA Times doesn't automatically sweep the argument in favor of notability. You can put the ref back if you want, but it changes nothing. You're grasping at straws.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.